Welcome to the forum for all things related to the internal combustion engine and or driving in Taiwan. Topics including (but not limited to) drivers' licenses, vehicular issues, what to do in traffic accidents, driving in Taiwan, good mechanics, etc. are all excellent candidates for this forum.

headhonchoII wrote:The rich can be defined as people in a certain top percentile income bracket. It's really not very complicated. It can also be defined as people able to afford a few million NTD car.

I wouldn't have much problem with that either ( ) DSC00296 by ed_lithgow, on Flickr though I think income tax, rather than vehicle/fuel tax, is the obvious context for that approach.

We reach for the sky. Neither does civilisation.

(Incidentally, if the search button is your friend, you must have some bloody useless, dysfunctional friends)

Suvlaca, I told you what is rich to most people, the top percentile, whether that is the top 5/10/20%, that will be a fairly abitrary choice. But they will obviously have incomes that are many multiples of the median wage.

But using a term like rich or poor is not a good way to go about it. They should be divided into percentiles just like any progressive tax system, and the terms rich or poor are not a useful system of classification.

Is the French system solely through fuel, the more you use, the more you pay? It makes sense to me.

Someone who is rich is simply someone who appears to have more money than you. It's completely subjective and immeasurable.

Another thing to take into consideration here is the funny culture of living at home with yo' momma, and driving a $3m car that you saved up eight years' salary to buy. Hey, if you like cars that much go ahead, but someone who owns a Lambo but doesn't own their own house can't be considered rich, can they?

I think taxation through fuel usage and direct tolls on major roads is the way forward. I don't have a problem with tax, I just have a problem with tax being poorly distributed according to my own personal values. I'd say compared to the UK, we've got it pretty good here (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya to name but a few).

headhonchoII wrote:Suvlaca, I told you what is rich to most people, the top percentile, whether that is the top 5/10/20%, that will be a fairly abitrary choice. But they will obviously have incomes that are many multiples of the median wage.

But using a term like rich or poor is not a good way to go about it. They should be divided into percentiles just like any progressive tax system, and the terms rich or poor are not a useful system of classification.

I couldn't agree less, and I truly believe it is thinking like this which caused the death of capitalism in almost all previously profitable countries. This is a socialist mindset and a method which has never done any good for anyone overall, other than putting money into government coffers for a short term. Punishing the very people with money to spare only results in them having less money to spend and invest in business, commerce, and employment of others.This also results in dwindling investment into the most technological car brackets, which results in slowing down of most technological endeavors.If one wishes to reduce the money in wealthy people's accounts or pockets through tax, in order to put money into other people's pockets instead, then one can simply start a socialist or communist campagne. This is completely unfair in every moral and practical way and until everyone agrees to have a socialist government, then any republican government such as Taiwan should and must stop taxing people just because the majority think that their pay grade and or benefits should be upped without having to put in any extra work or effort. This is systemic corruption and only brings down the living standards of everyone within it.

So let's say for argument's sake that nobody can afford a Ferrari any more, because they can't afford, or won't pay the tax for it. So then they buy a cheaper Porsche, and then people deem that too luxurious as there aren't any Ferraris on the market any longer, and then people buy BMWs instead, and then VWs, and then Toyotas, and then Nissans, and then Cherrys, and then bicycles, and then skate boards, and then Nikes, and then flip flops, and then nothing.I suppose that might work though if what you want is for everyone to be within the mean wage bracket, and for there to eventually be nobody rich or wealthy any more.

The end result of taxing the rich or wealthy in order to benefit the average or the under average is that the rich and wealthy are taxed out of existence, or they simply move elsewhere. It's always, always, always a loose-loose ending. Tax needs to remain apportioned and the only way of doing that in this case is to tax people on what they use which is provided to them by the government, and which they can choose to use.Fuel should not be subsidized by the government as those subsidies come from other people's pockets who don't necessarily drive. Fuel should be paid for by the people which use it. The same goes for milk and eggs, clothing and drugs, properties and the rest. Most people would find it ridiculous if the government charged them a tax on a hair cut and then gave the money to a gun company who produced guns for export. Or if they paid twenty percent more for a coffee because the government wanted to build a new basketball court for its legislators. But that's how the tax system usually works. It takes money from one thing and then spends it somewhere entirely unrelated. In other words, what you pay for is not what you get.

And that's no way to run an effective economic system.

Pay for what you use. No more!

I hate it. Really hate it , when I constantly read how the wealthy aren't taxed enough, or how they should be chased after for this tax, or that extra levy. It was the U.K. which first took the carrot off the end of my stick by putting up furious amounts of red tape in front of anything one wanted to do in life and then taxed the bejezus out of anyone, who, heavens forbid made anything of themselves by being successful.I want to hear about all the pats on the backs and all the bailouts there are for failed restauranteurs, or garage owners, street vendors, and anyone else who had the incentive to try and make something for themselves, but yet failed in the process. There's no help for those who try and fail. But those who do succeed are then brandished as being too posh for everyone's good, and so it is demanded that they shouldn't enjoy their money so much and instead give it up to those who don't have as much.I wish people would remember where the vast majority of these profits come from. They come from trial and error, investments and failures. From winning and losing. From very high investment risks. And yes, some from criminality, but that's another matter.People with money generally like their money a lot, and generally like to make even more of it. They do this by investing. By hiring people. By taking risks and dangerous gambles at times. These people often live on the edge, and believe me don't always live the relaxed life that most people think they do. They're busy workers, with a lot of stress on their shoulders, and some dream of the day when they can step back and live out the rest of it without the prozac, booze, luncheons, travelling, studies of endless new bureaucracy, new tax codes, employment laws, minimum wages, health benefits, maximum working hours, and all of the other dictations by government.And yes, at the end of the day these people like to feel just a little bit, like they've worked hard for a reason. They may like to sit in the sporty Ferrari they have tucked up at home. He might even like to take off his suit, put on his pink, lycra leotard and stretch out quietly in the back of his blacked out Hummer, so that he can listen to Bach at full volume, through his Alpine and drown out the stress of the day, whilst knocking back a glass of cold bubbly.

For whatever reason people enjoy their cars, they should be entitled to them. I know plenty of people with what some of you chaps would call extravagant cars, and yet can't really afford them. They are on a mean income, and yet all they want in life is one thing which they can be proud that they worked towards. And in this case, it's a nice looking car. Some people buy watches, others jewelry, and some like truffle shavings in their soup. We all like our 'luxuries' from time to time. Should we really have to pay tax for them all?

headhonchoII wrote:No it is not subjective and immeasurable, it is the upper percentile of earners.

Yes! Tax them! All of them!

Let me ask a question here.

Which bracket of income earner stands the best chance of helping those people in that picture above?Who knows? Perhaps in their country, they are considered the highest bracket earners. Should they pay more tax for their luxuries? Regardless of whether you think they are rich or not, which is entirely subjective, there is one fact standing. Their living standards are not improved by the additional fuel tax on a Taiwan driven Ferrari. I will stake all my gold on that.I'll be willing to bet though that it's the one percent, the top percentile, or top tier, whichever you want to call it, that is interested in improving the living standards of those people. They are interested in this endeavor, because by offering people higher living standards as a payment, they can, in return receive the labour offered by these people at a reasonable cost. This will potentially result in profits....Just as long as no government gets in the way.

Countries like India have and China have huge amounts of wealth concentrated at the top (high GINI coefficient) and they certainly have no problem whatsoever paying the high taxes associated with importing luxury foreign goods. Most of your theories are way off the mark suvlaca, you seem to think returning to medieval times would be good for all of us. A classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.The trickle down theory is complete BS too, real crock of crap. It's well known that people with the median and lower incomes spend more of their money than the higher percentiles, who can happily lock most of it up in long term trusts, property, foreign bank accounts etc.

Look th US history towards the end of the 19th century when economic power quickly became concentrated in monopolies in steel and oil etc. The government of the time was wise enough to forcibly break these monopolies.

You then fall back on the tired socialism/communism tirade. Boring.

You don't have a clue that the tax system here is actually a parasite on salaried workers as I have explained. Well let's allow salaried workers tax on falsely declared salaries, lower their income tax from 5 years ago, allow them to hide their salary offshore, give them tax breaks and government land cheap, and then we will talk fairness.

headhonchoII wrote:Countries like India have and China have huge amounts of wealth concentrated at the top (high GINI coefficient) and they certainly have no problem whatsoever paying the high taxes associated with importing luxury foreign goods. Most of your theories are way off the mark suvlaca, you seem to think returning to medieval times would be good for all of us. A classic example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.The trickle down theory is complete BS too, real crock of crap. It's well known that people with the median and lower incomes spend more of their money than the higher percentiles, who can happily lock most of it up in long term trusts, property, foreign bank accounts etc.

Look th US history towards the end of the 19th century when economic power quickly became concentrated in monopolies in steel and oil etc. The government of the time was wise enough to forcibly break these monopolies.

You then fall back on the tired socialism/communism tirade. Boring.

You don't have a clue that the tax system here is actually a parasite on salaried workers as I have explained. Well let's allow salaried workers tax on falsely declared salaries, lower their income tax from 5 years ago, allow them to hide their salary offshore, give them tax breaks and government land cheap, and then we will talk fairness.

You seem to be agreeing with me whilst contradicting your own points.

1) The first point that you make is that people on lower and median incomes spend more of their money than the higher earners do. I'd like to ask you firstly, who employs those people and who then taxes those people, and finally where do these taxes end up being spent? You then agree with me at the end of your piece,

Well let's allow salaried workers tax on falsely declared salaries, lower their income tax from 5 years ago, allow them to hide their salary offshore, give them tax breaks and government land cheap, and then we will talk fairness.

Why do you think wealthy people hide their money offshore, get away without paying tax, and then get cheap land and free money from the government? Well one, because they can. And two, because the government shouldn't be taxing people's incomes and products, and then giving those proceeds to wealthy companies. This is exactly what I'm talking about, and you're agreeing that it's frustrating.

2) Your third point about medeval times. You presume that I know nothing of how the medeval times were not exactly fair times.Here's just a short excerpt from wiki on the subject:

During the High Middle Ages which began after 1000, the population of Europe increased greatly as new technological and agricultural innovations allowed trade to flourish and crop yields to increase. Manorialism – the organization of peasants into villages that owed rents and labor service to nobles – and feudalism – a political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords in return for the right to rents from lands and manors – were two of the ways of organizing medieval society that developed during the High Middle Ages.

I'm sorry, but you seemed to have ever so slightly misread my original posts concerning the taxation of goods. I'm sorry if you took that to mean that we should revert to a system such as the one mentioned above.

3) Your second point about China and India having no problem paying for taxes on luxury foreign goods. I'm not sure which group of people you are talking about here, but most people in China can't afford to purchase many of the goods which they export, let alone import. This is why they are reliant upon offering cheap credit to the U.S. in order to maintain its deficit. If the U.S. consumer base was lost, the the home economy in China would collapse, as even though they have a higher population that the U.S., they have a far lower, more realistic average income and cannot consume their own expensive products.Some of those in the higher tier income bracket in China do have money, can afford expensive imports, and pay a high amount of tax on them. This doesn't keep the economy afloat however. Cheap labour keeps the economy afloat, and keeps foreign investment rolling in. Chinese government policies also restrict competition, confiscate property and farmland from people, and give out public money to foreign companies and local companies in order to carry out projects which the government deems necessary, and the public have very little say. China has a communist government remember. If that is a style of government you prefer, then as I suggested before, you are always free to lobby for one.

4) Trickle down theories are bullshit? Really? I admit, that I'm sure there must be some people in the world who have never had to work or ever had to employ someone, but I'm afraid I've never personally met one. Are you presently unemployed?

5) Monopolies are broken by actively encouraging smaller, or new business growth. In other words, competition. This has little to do with my point, other than that incomes shouldn't be randomly taxed. By reducing the tax burden on the average worker, they get to keep more of their money and invest it into their own competitive business. You can easily maintain a monopoly by taxing the average worker's earnings, and expenditures, thus helping to prevent them from becoming competitive. Large companies pay tax. It's called corporate tax and is legal in the U.K., U.S. and Taiwan. This is different to income tax.

6)

You don't have a clue that the tax system here is actually a parasite on salaried workers as I have explained

. Yes, I do have a clue and this is what I'm complaining about. As I said earlier, you should pay for what you use and nothing more. Nobody should be paying income tax, and then pay tax again on personal purchases. The cost of the purchase in itself is payment enough to the person(s) who provided the product. If the government requires a tax for any services related to the production of that product, then it already takes it from the company which produced it. They don't need to tax the person who purchases it, as the purchaser is the only support to the producer. You take away the support through taxation, and you take away the economy.

BTW, you can argue against the theories I support, not that they're mine if you want to. I studied a few of them and decided for myself that this type of method that used to be employed by the fastest expanding economies which gave the highest average living standards in the world was pretty effective. I don't believe that socialism really worked all that well or that communism really offered a good quality of life.

Um...trying to connect with the topic a bit, I don't really see that the present vehicle "fuel tax" is credibly a wealth tax, as the above discussion seems to imply.

As I understand it, the annual "fuel tax" is related solely to engine capacity.

If it was related to the market value of the vehicle in the taxable period, then it would approach being a wealth tax, (caveats about the different ways people choose to spend their money aside) but it isn't, so it doesn't. A 20 year old 3L vehicle pays the same fuel tax as a 1 year old 3L vehicle.

It could reasonably be regarded as a "luxury" tax, (since a 20 year old vehicle can still reasonably be regarded as a luxury) and (as I noted above) its abolition could therefore be regarded as a transfer of taxation from a luxury to essentials, if it puts up the price of essential goods like food. This might bother some people, even if they aren't Marxist-Leninists.

Regarded as an attempt at a fuel tax, it does seem to be a rather half-assed, arbitary and stupid one.

OTOH, the electorate in most countries are rather half-assed, arbitary and stupid, perhaps especially in the context of cars.

Although I personally favour a tax on fuel at the pump as simpler and fairer, it could be that some kind of carbon-tax on cars has a more direct and powerful influence on the purchasing decisions of the average punter, who usually has no fucking clue how much fuel they use, or any idea how to work it out.

We reach for the sky. Neither does civilisation.

(Incidentally, if the search button is your friend, you must have some bloody useless, dysfunctional friends)

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.